Wednesday, March 28, 2018

F.A.N. Newsletter

Before we get to the editorial
below, here is a quick update on our fundraiser for our TSCA lawsuit against the
US EPA. We have raised $38,765 from 221 donors. Thank you all for your
magnificent response to our appeal. We are well on our way to our goal of
$75,000 by May 31 – and if we achieve that our total will be tripled to
$225,000

(and please provide us with your phone
number or email address so that we can thank you quickly)

Warning to Moms2B: Avoid Fluoride.

Better safe than sorry

Before Ellen and I got involved
with fighting fluoridation, we were heavily involved in fighting municipal waste
incinerators. In fact, between 1985 and 1995 we helped communities stop over 300
incinerators being built in North America. One of the things we learned from
that effort was that success was dependent on good grassroots organizing
locally. Networking with groups on the state and national level was a great
advantage on two fronts: the sharing of successful strategies and the knowing
that one was not alone in the fight.

After a few years into the battle the message from Ellen to the grass-roots:
The only ones to protect a community from health risks are those who live in
it. And Paul added: No risk is acceptable if it is avoidable.
It is that second statement that
is relevant and important for our court case against the EPA. After we have
shown that

a)
fluoride is a hazard because of its neurotoxicity, and

b) it
presents serious neurotoxic risks to children at current exposure levels from
drinking fluoridated water.

We will have to show that
these risks are unreasonable.

The major proponents of fluoridation like the Oral Health Division of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have conceded that the
predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic (CDC,
1999, 2001). In other words, because you don’t have to swallow fluoride to get
its purported benefits, you can more reasonably apply it directly to the surface
of the teeth using fluoridated toothpaste. Some would argue that the most
important thing is that children be taught to brush their teeth properly whether
they use fluoridated or non-fluoridated toothpaste. If the latter is chosen then
it is important that young children be supervised to prevent them swallowing the
toothpaste and that toothpaste manufacturers be prohibited from using fruit
flavors and packaging that actually encourages children to look at fluoridated
toothpaste as candy.
Fluoridation promoters will have
to argue a very difficult “risks versus benefit” case. They have to argue that
the very meager (if any) benefit of swallowing fluoride (their assertions
in this regard are theoretical. In 70 years there has never been a randomized
control trial at the community or individual level that demonstrates that
swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay) can justify the risks of lowering the IQ
of children when it is neither necessary nor rational to swallow fluoride at
all. No risk is acceptable if it is avoidable.
To make their task even more
difficult, it is not a small risk we are talking about it is a very
serious risk. Lowering a child’s intelligence is very serious – particularly
at the population level.
The scientific evidence for that
serious risk was strengthened even more on Sept 19, 2017, when a rigorous
mother-child study was published (Bashash
et al., 2017). This study, funded by the US-government, showed a strong
correlation between the amount of fluoride mothers were exposed to during
pregnancy and a lowered IQ in their offspring. Based on the data from this study
typical fluoride exposure levels of pregnant women in USA has the potential to
yield a lowering of up to six IQ points. At the population level such a shift in
IQ would halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by about 50% the
number of mentally handicapped children (IQ less than 70). See more information
on the Bashash study at the end of this editorial
At the very least, this finding
should trigger the Precautionary Principle. If in doubt take it out. Stop adding
fluoride to our water now, if other rigorously-conducted studies come out later
that refute the Bashash study then consider putting it back in. But to continue
this practice with such evidence on the table is unthinkable. This 70-year
experiment must end now.
Meanwhile, as far as pregnant
woman are concerned we urge them to be safe rather than sorry. They can find
better ways of fighting tooth decay after their children are born, but there are
no ways of recovering any IQ points IF they are lost during pregnancy.
That loss is irreversible and permanent and, in our view, if they are lost
because of fluoride exposure, that loss is unnecessary.
We are still developing our
campaign and we need your help. Our message: “Moms2B: Avoid Fluoride.” Better
safe than sorry. Please send us your
suggestions.

Thank you,

Paul
and Ellen Connett for the FAN fundraising Team

References:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
1999. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of drinking water
to prevent dental caries. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. (MMWR). 48(41):
933-940 October 22, 1999. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
2001.Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in
the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. (MMWR). 50(RR14);1-42. August 17, 2001. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm